LjSpike

I didn't know about these security tokens. Interesting. Anyway, A combat to the EPROM's eraseable by software stated earlier (terrible design flaw there, it should be a physical mechanism, but hey ho.) which makes this very 'weak' for security put it in the non-eraseable backup-ROM. Also. To a point above about checking the fields, and copying text, thats no longer a keylogger, and is a trojan (Trojans watch what happens on the screen - in a manner of speaking. As keyloggers log key presses (and to a greater extent mouse clicks))

Well good day then. You do seem very incapable to try and accept any view aside from your own though. Gallileo disputed (at that time) scientifically and universally accepted facts.

Hot Dark Matter is ultrarelativistic, so is near the speed of light. It would have a time dilation which would cause it to 'age' much slower than stationary objects. Could it be an extremely unstable set of sub-atomic particles then, but would just appear to be very stable to us because of the time dilation. Just a thought for you guys.

The problem occurs in that the neuronal reactions in our brain have already determined what we will do but everything is random, thus surely our neuronal reactions haven't decided what were going to do. If the very building blocks of the universe is random, thus in turn everything else has to be equally random, making prediction completely impossible, it'd also mean that working out the probability of something is impossible as randomness follows no rules, so all outcomes are equally random. This would then completely contradict bells theorem as no matter what, it would always be a correlation that's completely random. Yet its always 1, 0, or -1 in bells theorem. Whatever the very lowest level of the universe is, the rest has to follow suit, so if the very lowest level of the universe is random, we have free will as our actions are random? Visa versa, if the very lowest level of the universe is following a set of rules, thus not random, we don't have free will, as were following a set of rules, thus determinism/super-determinism would be correct in this case. I mean, if were going all pro-randomness then the laws of nature don't exist? I mean, if its random it can't follow a rule, thus no laws of nature, and FTL is allowed, bells theorem is wrong, ooh lovely Galileo was wrong, the orbits are just randomly made of randomness so tomorrow we might fall into the sun. Most of science falls out the window because most of science says the universe follows X and Y rules.

Ok, I'll look through the generic what could be considered as insults in that reply. Hunches are the basis of science, and hunches are an opinion. Scientists then try to find a way to backup their opinion, and other scientists try to disprove it, rather than saying "oooh well its an opinion right here so we can't be bothered to do anything with any of it". Galileo had a hunch that everything didn't orbit the earth, as he didn't like the idea everything orbited the earth, because it didn't explain Mar's orbit, he then found evidence to prove his opinion, which was still disputed for a long time, but doing calculations and so on, to suggest that earth isn't the centre of the universe. He then eventually proved it by predicting lots of locations of planets in the sky. Also, Non-local hidden variables aren't ruled out, they're just said to be unlikely, but still possible. You want to critise me for going away from science, well, then don't go away from science and make things up. Now back on topic, randomness isn't necessarily things being...completely well, random. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness Read through ALL of paragraph one. Individual events may be unpredictable, say the roll of a dice. But 7 will normally occur twice as often as 4. If we can predict things that happen in the future, then the universe is not random. Simple as, its just not random. If the very fabric of the universe, particles themselves behaved randomly, then matter can be created and disappear, randomly, because if its random, it doesn't follow any rules. That'd also mean energy could likely be created and destroyed, as energy and matter are interchangeable when anti-matter is added into the equation. It'd also mean storms would magically appear and disappear. God! Even creationism is a more solid explanation for events then complete and utter randomness. At least creationism attempts to actually explain the issue with something. The fact that we can predict things, shows the universe is not random. The fact we can only predict some things, shows it must be an exceptionally complex set of rules it follows. So unless you want to dispute that matter and energy are constant, then randomness begins to fall apart at the seams. The butterfly over in the amazon in our lovely butterfly effect theory, alternates the state of that proton, neutron or electron we're observing under our microscope. Also I did read some of your links, but you gave me a mighty mass of them to digest ok? Also, one of your links comments: "However, because of experimental limitations, all experiments to date required additional assumptions to obtain a contradiction with local realism, resulting in loopholes." So we can't go concrete on all the experiments here. They require assumptions, such as that we have to presume the laws of nature are correct, and you know the rules of this site, that when we start suggesting that the laws of nature are wrong, that we wander into the depths of pseudoscience and skepticality. And bells theorem has to also make an assumption like stated above, because it has to presume that were correct in our observations of the experiments, and our understanding of quantum mechanics as a whole. Though presuming its correct it ONLY eliminates local hidden variables.

You seem to not fully understand the concept of a password. I shall explain its many benefits, which cause the accounts linked to passwords to be incredibly more secure: 1) They're memorable, thus don't have to be written down somewhere unlike a password, so say you get the password to this website for an account, you don't know which username it matches to, thus can't log in. 2) They cause many more combinations for a computer program to have to try if the website of such isn't using a captcha, so a 1 letter password has 26 possibilities, but a 1 letter password 1 letter username has 26x26 possibilities. 3) They offer the capacity to trick key loggers. Say you think you're being key logged, you can type in a letter of the username, then a letter of the password, and make sure you alternate, thus causing the keylogger to be fooled. Usernames are used to make it double-factor or even triple-factor authentication, because single-factor authentication is very weak. Also you're bank is one of the least security-focused I've ever heard of, Most of them have at least a memorable question, password, and then require the account numbers input.

I'd never think of using it as an individual factor authentication, nothing really uses individual factor authentication as its easy to get past, hence why its always password AND username... No, just as a replacement to some of the very slow, extra pieces of information. --- No, I literally mean PHONE TEXTS. Captcha isn't text at all, its an image. Also, a card reader just reads cards. No, I mean a physical object, not connected to a network, which offers capability to assist a login. For example, I have a little device that looks slightly like a calculator, I put in a code, it gives me a code based off its hardware and the time, that code then works to log in.

But, we have a slight problem here. Ok, I can accept your calculator can divide to more decimal places in an answer, giving a more accurate response, BUT, I could square anything from 3.1622776601 to 3.1622776609 to equal to 10. But if a more accurate version of 10 squared is 3.1622776601​68 then surely only 3.1622776601​ to 3.1622776602 should result in an answer of 10, OR they should both not equal 10, as those two rational numbers aren't the square root of 10. 3.1622776601​ should result in just under 10 and 3.1622776602 should be just over 10, and then 3.1622776609 should be quite a way away from 10, yet ALL of these numbers are resulting in 10 when squared?

I know the graph was different interpretations of one theory, but I was just saying about the theory that everything is predetermined by the previous events.

Well, I named it hidden variables because I came across this while looking at hidden variables, anyway, the hidden variables aren't fully disproved (though I don't like the idea of them in this experiment), only the local ones were disproved. Anyway, Do you know a good link to this nice Schrodinger equation so I can have a look at?

I did read you've above post, though other theories are generally more popular now-a-days, its by no means a 'minor theory' that everything is predetermined. This also doesn't require another universe (though doesn't rule out the possibility of one). Now, im not expert in quantum mechanics by far shot. Personally I don't like the whole idea of how it explains things, for example the double slit experiment, and so on, if the proton can 'know' if its wave-like or particle-like characterics are being observed, well that just sounds like a very over-technical version of creationism, and there being a 'higher power' instructing what happens in the universe. Actually, at one point steven hawkings also shows support in the idea that there isn't free will, its just way to many variables for us to find that decide stuff. That would make quite sensible sense as well, if you wish to go on a more visible sort of example, the 'hive mind' of a crowd or group of peers. People follow other people, because the other people, are a variable influenced the person, then influencing the other people.

It would explain the fact of it square rooting, then squaring the result of the root, being not perfect, but I would have expected to get it in a "0.34x10 to the power of a very big number" format appear. Plus, if it were that, i wouldn't expect just two more decimal places to make it be able to return to 10.

Yeah, pretty much. Malware can't reprogram the BIOS can it? The bios is read-only? I can't say to know to much about EPROM, but ROM isn't in rare usage now. BIOS in a (standard) computer though, will be ROM, or atleast the very core of it. If the lovely little security mechanism is programmed into the ROM part, then it would be secure, the EPROM, im still unclear how that could be effected by a virus though, as it specifies it requires huge amounts of ultraviolet light to be directed onto the quartz, computer viruses can't (yet) magically make anything emit ultraviolet light?

I've not read through every reply, but very simply. The amazon is not nessisarily easy to live in, a lot of creatures make lots of competition. LOW PRESSURE results in more species (so greater biodiversity at a glance), and more individuals HIGH PRESSURE results in faster evolution, but more deaths and more 'unusual' adaptions. Now, just because it may only result in 'simple' organisms, doesn't mean it has less biodiversity then an enviroment with 'complex organisms'

Ok, im not an expert in this topic (i'll confess that) but i've done some reading about it, the delayed choice double-slit and the double-slit etc. In the double slit, we either measure the photon as wave-like or particle-like, it then behaves like whatever we are measuring it as, even if we know it hit the photo-detection plate, as long as we don't look at the white dot, it can end up with it causing a particle-like outcome by triggering the telescopes behind after the photo-detection plate is removed without being looked at before it hits the telescopes. (do correct me if i made a mistake somewhere up there.) It sounds to me like theres a very very simple explaination, and i'll probably look like a right fool saying this, but... Isn't it just behaving like a particle and a wave at the same time? we're measuring just the wave-like property, or the particle-like property each time, even randomly, and changing our mind while it travels through free space. Now that very simply makes me think its either behaving like a wave and particle at the same time as stated above, or that its interacting with other objects in the space of the experiment, for example removing a photon from the foil, the foil photon behaving particle like and the other behaving wave-like or visa versa, or intercepting an energy wave of one form or another, or passing through the photodetection plate as a wave, then after that transforming into a particle-like state?